61505 


SPEECH 


OP 


GEN. GEO. H. GORDON, 


DELIVERED 


At Newbttryport, Mass., 

OCTOBER 28 , 1868 . 



Gentlemen: At a meeting of the citizens of the Fifth District at 
Salem, on the evening of the 16th of October, I gave a general de¬ 
scription of through whom, by what means, and for what purposes sup¬ 
plies from the Department of Virginia and North Carolina, while 
under the command of General B. F. Butler, were poured directly into 
the departments of the Rebel Commissary and Quartermaster, on the 
right bank of the Chowan, and up the Nottaway River as far as the 
rebel station at Murfrees Depot. 

I then stated that the ring which controlled this nefarious traffic oper¬ 
ated through four concerns known by the names of Rensliaw & Co., 
McKay & Co., Geo. W. Lane & Co., and C. C. Pool & Co. I further 
stated that the real parties in interest were Benjamin F. Butler, com¬ 
manding the Department, Fisher A. Hildreth, of Lowell, his brother- 
in-law, Geo. W. Lane, and J. C. Sanborn. 

I traced the connection of Butler with this ring, by his active and 
interposing agency in carrying out to the letter a corrupt contract for 
continuing this rebel trade, made by his brother-in-law Fisher A. Hil¬ 
dreth, with a trader convicted of traffic with the enemy, and sentenced 
to be confined in the Penitentiary during the remainder of the war, 
and to pay a fine of one thousand dollars, by which contract, in consid¬ 
eration of large profits, Hildreth bound himself to see that the con¬ 
vict’s case went right with General Butler. And I showed you that 
after Butler had been discharged from duty in the field, and while on 
his way to Lowell, he remitted the sentence of imprisonment, thus as¬ 
suming a power of which he had been stripped, and using it to con¬ 
tinue the shield of his protection to make the convict’s case go right, 
by warding off the penalty. 

And I further showed you that during a period of fotir months after 
his trial and conviction, the convict, in the interest of the ring, had 
been permitted by Butler to carry on his trade of pouring supplies 
into the depots of the rebel army in exchange for cotton. 

Those of you who have read the remarks I made in Salem on the 
16th instant, will perceive that it was necessary, in each of the con¬ 
cerns through which the ring operated, that some one of the rebel 
agents or some one well known to the rebel agents should become 
interested, and also that a control over those agents should be exer¬ 
cised by the commanding general of the department, that thus their 
best supplies might be secured. Having shown how this was lone in 
the case of Charles Whillock, whose testimony was referred to as given 
before the military commission; I now propose to show you how the 
same influence was offered by the George W. Lane, and Fisher A. 
Hildreth, members of the ring, in the case of a convict, one Logan 
Hunt, who also was pardoned by Butler, after he (Butler) had been 
sent in disgrace to Lowell by General Grant. 

But first let me show you something of this rebel trade from General 




2 


14 - 1*1 

Z. 

Butler’s Department. And to do this, I shall not now rely upon any 
testimony taken before the military commission of which I was presi¬ 
dent; hut will read to you from the printed report of a committee of 
the House of Bepresentatives of the thirty-eighth Congress ordered to 
investigate the subject of trade from rebellious states, upon motion of 
Mr. Driggs of Michigan, in the following words. 

“Whereas it is reported that one George W. Lane of Baltimore 
received a permit in December last from H. A. Bisley chief agent of 
the treasury, to proceed to North Carolina and exchange provisions 
with the rebels for cotton; therefore, Besolved etc.” 

On motion of Mr. E. B. Wasliburne, of Illinois, this duty was further 
extended to inquire into the general subject of trade with rebellious 
States. In the dis harge of that duty the committee appeared at Nor¬ 
folk, Va., after Butler had been dismissed from the field, and some 
time in the early part of 1865, and there examining witnesses under 
oath, elicited the testimony I shall now quote. 

Eirst I shall show you that the enemy were fed (and how it was 
done) from the department commanded by General Butler, during the 
months of May, June, and July, 1865. The first evidence of the fact 
to which I shall invite your attention is that of Mr. Geo. W. Singleton, 
sworn before the committee of the House of Bepresentatives, while in 
session at Norfolk, Va. Here is the book [showing it] and on pages 
139 and 140, Singleton’s testimony. The examination was conducted 
by Hon. Elihu B. Wasliburne, of Illinois, as chairman, in session at 
Norfolk, Va., on the 13th February, 1865. 

To a question by Mr. Wasliburne, “Have you been tradingwith the 
rebellious States?” 

He answers, that Mr. Logan Hunt asked him to engage in trade 
with him, that he got on liis horse and went out into Currituck and 
other counties in North Carolina, and although lie understood there 
could be no trade stores established beyond the picket lines, when he 
got to South Mills, he found that he was beyond the pickets, and so he 
kept on as far as Elizabeth City, (about 20 miles outside of our picket 
line) and saw that stores were doing business there. 

Question.—(By Mr. Wasliburne.) Did you find a good many trade 
stores about there? 

Answer. Two that had been at South Mills, were removed to some 
other place. When I got to Elizabeth City I found there were two 
stores there. 

Q. What forces had possession of Elizabeth City? 

A. It did not seem to be in possession of any forces; either side 
could come in as they chose. 

Q. Were they large stores? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Could the rebels trade at those stores in Elizabeth City? 

A. Oh, yes, I believe there were eight or nine carts came in the 
next dav with cotton. There was a plenty of cotton there. 

Q. Where did these carts bring cotton from? 

A. They brought it from Edenton. 

Q. What articles were taken back in return for the cotton? 

A. Sugar, coffee and such articles. 

Q. Where did these articles go to? 

A. I do not know. These men brought the cotton and carried 
hack goods. 

Q. Did you see any rebel soldiers during the expedition, and, if so, 
how many? 

A. I saw a good many on their way back to the army; some of 
them had been home on furlough, I understood. 

Q. (By Mr. Perry.) Were any rebel soldiers guarding property 
there? 


3 


A. When I went in, I saw the rebel soldiers at South Mills; they 
had their cartridge-boxes, pistols and side-arms. I got into conversa¬ 
tion with them, told them I was looking for a place to locate a store; 
they said they (lid not intend to interfere with any business I expected 
to carry on. I learned, before I got to Elizabeth City, that Captain 
Lane’s (George W. Lane) boat was up the Chowan delivering goods. 
I stopped all night. This man remarked that the disposition of the 
people who carried goods there was not to retail them at all; they pre¬ 
ferred to sell them by the quantity. 

Q. What was the impression you gathered from what you saw in 
regard to this trade? Was it carried on to large extent? Did the 
rebels get from it a great many articles necessary to supply their 
army? 

A. My impression was that it must have been a trade which went 
directly through, for there could not have been such a quantity of 
goods sold in the neighborhood. I learned from a young man there, 
who was formerly employed in my store, that they could sell all the 
goods that could be brought there. I asked him how they got away. 
He said they came from across the river and took them. He said it 
took two or three all the time to sell, and that some nights they were 
up until eleven or twelve o’clock. 

Q. (By Mr. Wasliburne.) Did you see any other rebel troops there, 
than those you have mentioned ? 

A. No sir; only these. 

Q. Did you know of any federal troops approaching while you were 
there; and if so, what became of these rebel soldiers? 

A. There came a man running who said, “damn it, get out of here; 
the cavalry are just here now; if you do not get out, you will be 
caught.” One of them ran into a smoke-house, and the lady of the 
house locked the door. The cavalry-men did not get off their horses, 
but went on down to Gatesville. After they had passed, he came out. 

Also, the testimony of William G. Harrison, of Norfolk, Va. 

Questioned by Mr. Wasliburne as to what he knew of the amount of 
goods sold in Norfolk within the last six months, to go into rebel states 
or to the trade stores beyond our lines, he says, “I do not know how 
many goods have gone out, but I think a right smart amount have 
gone. I have seen a good many lighter loads of goods start out; the 
major part of the goods that generally went out in these lighters was 
coffee, sugar and salt.” 

Also, the testimony of Logan Hunt, who says, in answer to Mr. 
Washburne’s question, “I have carried out goods to South Mills. I 
carried out sugar, coffee, molasses, and some liquors. The tirst articles 
carried out were 3,000 pounds of bacon and pork, and the .balance in 
groceries, dry goods, and such articles; they were carried to South 
Mills, about thirty miles from Norfolk.” 

Q. Did you carry any boots and shoes? 

A. I do not believe I did many; carried candles; don’t recollect 
the quantity of coffee; don’t know how much sugar; the cargo 
amounted to between six and seven thousand dollars worth. 

Q. Did any of these goods go outside of our lines? 

A. Then edl went outside. I sold them for cotton. I think most 
of them went across the rebel lines. The traders said they wanted 
this meat to trade for cotton. 

Q With whom did they expect to trade? Was it with the rebel 
commissaries upon the Chowan River? 

A. There were rebel commissaries there. A man by the name of 
I. R. White, whom I formerly knew in this city, was one, 

Q. Did you ever see White down at South Mills? 

A. Yes. 


4 


Q. What time was that? 

A. It was after the time when I carried goods there. 

Q. In whose lines was South Mills at that time? 

A. He said it was neutral ground; it was fifteen miles inside our 
picket lines. 

Q. Were there no Union forces there? 

A Ho. 

Q. What did White come there for? 

A. He came there to partake of some refreshments. I did not 
know he was to be there at all. I expected Corpren (?) and Carr 
there. 

Q. Who is Carr? 

A. He is a trader who buys meat. 

Q. Was not White a rebel commissary? 

A. He came there in citizen’s dress. I asked him what he was 
doing; he said he was stationed at South Key, and that he was a cap¬ 
tain in the commissary department of the rebel army. 

Q. Did you sell any meat to Carr? 

A. I think I sold him not quite 12,000 pounds. He gave me a pound 
of cotton for a pound of meat. 

Q. Did you ever have any other meeting or conversation with these 
men within rebel lines or on neutral ground, as you call it? 

A. Hone at all. I have seen persons who said they were rebels 
down there and talked with them. 

Q. You have spoken of a man by the name of Carr. Was he 
engaged in this trade? 

A. Frederick W. Carr was engaged in the cotton trade. I bought 
cotton of him in the summer. He lives most of the time at South 
Mills. These memorandums [which were shown to the witness] are 
his accounts with the rebel government 


1864. 


C. S. Government. 

June 4. To ... . 262 pounds Bacon. 


63 

it 

a 

464 

a 

a 

190 

it 

Pork. 

563 

it 

Bacon. 

2,153 

a 

Salt. 

227 

it 

Pork. 

50 

tt 

Bacon. 

6,355 

tt 

a 

2 Bbls. —400 

tt 

Pork. 

8 “ 1,600 

tt 

a 

275 

it 

Bacon. 

10 “ 2,000 

a 

Pork. 

127 

it 

Bacon. 

339 

a 

Pork. 


Dr 


The next testimony to which I shall call your attention is that of 
the Judge Advocate of the department, who is interrogated by Mr. 
Washburne as to what he knows of trade with the rebels from But¬ 
ler’s department, and what he found out while he was trying men 
within Butler’s department for that trade. 

Q. (By Mr. Washburne.) From the facts which came before you 
in these cases, (which had been tried,) and from the testimony you 
have been able to procure in this department, what is your impression 
of the general trade carried on from Norfolk through the enemy’s 
line and with the enemy for cotton ? 

A. My impression is that a large trade was carried on with the 


5 


enemy at South Mills, and at a landing about three miles from South 
Mills. My impression also is that a majority of the goods taken there 
found their way into the enemy’s lines, and not only into the enemy’s 
lines, but into the hands of rebel commissaries stationed on the other 
side of Chowan River; that is to say, such goods as were useful for 
rebel supplies, such as meat, sugar, coffee, etc. 

Q. 0 What was the rate of exchange for these goods at that time for 
cotton? 

A. A pound of meat for a pound of cotton. It was proved in the 
evidence that the rebels had been guarding the Chowan river, and that 
they allowed no cotton to cross, unless they secured meat for it at some 
such rates. 

Q. Then this trade, in your judgment, could not have been carried 
on to any extent without the connivance and assistance of the Rebel 
Government? 

A. No, sir, it could not. No doubt some cotton was smuggled 
across the river by parties on the other side, but the rebel authorities 
would not allow it to cross in any considerable quantities. 

Q. (By Mr. Perry, another member of the Committee of House of 
Representatives.) Did you have any evidence before you, by mark or 
otherwise, as to the former owership of this cotton? 

A There was evidence that some of this cotton was marked C. S. 
(Confederate States); and the witness also adds that though some of 
the cotton might be smuggled across, no considerable amount of it 
could have been obtained without the consent of the Confederate 
authorities; that, in fact, the transactions were made with their 
agents. 

It will now appear that though some of the men engaged in this 
infamous traffic were arrested, tried, and convicted of the same, yet 
they were allowed to continue it. 

First, that some of the men were arrested, tried, and convicted. 
The Judge Advocate General of the department, being duly sworn 
before this Committee, testified, in answer to the following question 
by Mr. Wasliburne: “Have you had anything to do in this depart¬ 
ment (General Butler’s) with the trial of persons engaged in unlawful 
trade with the enemy? ” “ that he was Judge Advocate of a Military 
Commission before which were tried six persons for trading with the 
enemy at South Mills; that their names were Enos Richmond, Ezra 
Baker, and Charles Whitlock, who sold goods at South Mills, at a 
branch store kept by a man by the name of Abbott; M. Dudley Bean, 
Logan Hunt, and Augustus Harney; that they were arrested for 
trading with the enemy during the months of May June, and July, 
1864 .” 

Q. (By Mr. Washburne.) What was the finding in those cases? 

A. The finding, except in the case of Harney, who was acquitted, 
was, guilty of some of the specifications in each case. I do not remem¬ 
ber whether they were found guilty of all the specifications- in any case 
or not. 

Now, I present to you evidence that, notwithstanding these parties 
were found guilty of trading with the enemy in contraband of war, not 
only did such trade continue, but some of the convicts themselves were 
permitted to continue the traffic during the ensuing fall and winter, 
and until General Butler was sent out of the department. 

In the cases of Charles Whitlock and Ezra Baker, which were intro¬ 
duced by me in my remarks at Salem, we have seen, by evidence 
before the Military Commission, that they continued the same traffic 
in the interest of the ring, in the concerns of Renshaw & Co. and 
McKay & Co. 


6 


We now turn to the evidence of John T. Daniels before the Con¬ 
gressional Committee. 

Q. (By Mr. Washburne.) From your knowledge of the transac¬ 
tions which have been carried on with the people of the rebel States, 
what in your judgment has the entire trade from Norfolk amounted 
to within the last six months? 

A. For the month of December I feel satisfied there must have 
been $1,500,000 worth of goods sent out. They have carried thegi up 
there day and night. Barges loaded with provisions have been con¬ 
tinually going out, and it is reported that the rebels sent their boats 
down Chowan River and just took them off. 

The testimony of the Judge Advocate of the department upon this 
point is as follows: 

Q. (By Hon. Mr. Perry.) From the time of the commencement 
of these trials, during their progress, and up to this time (January 
1865), as far as you know, have the same parties been allowed to con¬ 
tinue the trade? 

A. About a fortnight after the trial I was informed by two detec¬ 
tives that Richmond and Baker had gone down with a load of goods to 
South Mills, and I have since understood that the trade had gone on, 
though I know nothing of it personally. I instructed the detectives to 
investigate the matter and let me have such evidence as they could, as 
I proposed to try the parties again. I received a telegram from Colo¬ 
nel Saunders, Provost Marshal, saying they had gone down there. I 
told General Butler about it, and showed him the telegram, and he said 
he would attend to it. 

Q. Have you any information that he ever did attend to it? 

A. No sir. 

Q. Have you any information that after that they went forward 
with the trade? 

A. I know nothing personally about it at all. 

Q. Have you any information in respect to Mr. Hunt continuing 
in the trade during the time of his trial, and up to this time nearly? 

A. I have not, except by general rumor. I heard that the trade 
was going on. I have seen these detectives whom I have sometimes 
sent for in other matters, and they have told me that it was going on. 

Q. As an officer of the Government did you not feel that there was 
great delay in the department in stopping this trade. 

A. Yes sir, it was any opinion that there was great delay, that it 
ought to have been stopped, but I did not know where the fault lay. 

Q. (By Mr. Washburne.) Did you see any difference in this trade 
after the trial of these men? 

A. The information that I could give as to that is very slight, be¬ 
cause I rarely came to Norfolk, probably not more than once a month, 
and I knew nothing more than what I have heard. 

Q. What is your impression and belief from what you have heard? 

A. My impression is that the trade was going on, but -that impres¬ 
sion was simply based on what these detectives told me. 

In further corroboration we have the sworn testimony of Mr. Holi- 
iday, of Portsmouth, who testified that he could go at will from our 
lines to the rebel lines, and had been doing so, acting as an agent for 
the rebel contractors for the rebel armies. u I have seen passing over 
the Blackwater River goods in carts, and I have seen cotton coming 
this side of the river. It was understood generally that a great many 
goods came from Elizabeth City, and a great many from the trade 
stores. When I have been out I have always met carts, more or less, 
going and coming with cotton. I understood that some of the carts 
came across the river and went to Elizabeth City. I heard so. I un- 


7 


derstand there was a good deal of trade going on between Elizabeth 
City and Murfrees Depot. I think I have seen these carts, as many as 
seven or eight times altogether within three or four months, quite a 
number of carts each time. I have talked with a great many people 
about the matter, and they all say there is a great deal of trade be¬ 
tween Elizabeth C ty nnd Murfrees Depot. I think a great many 
goods come over from Norfolk for cotton. I supposed our Government 
authorized it, by seeing so many goods go out. These goods began to 
go out there in November, I think; that was the first time I saw any 
goods on the other side of the river; sometimes I have met as many 
as six carts going; they were at the ferry; I think they would average 
about six or seven carts in a day. I think it is likely they go every 
day.” 

I shall now show you by sworn testimony that the traffic was allow¬ 
ed to continue notwithstanding General Butler’s attention was fre¬ 
quently called to the fact that the cases of these men (sentenced to im¬ 
prisonment) had not been acted upon; and that some of them were 
still engaged in the same business. The Judge Advocate of the de¬ 
partment is questioned [page 142] by Mr. W ashburne to know what 
became of the cases of the men he had tried for trading with the 
enemy, whose names I have already given you; to which he replies: 
“ The records were forwarded by me to General Butler on or before 
the 20th of October, 1864. At that time they went out of my posses¬ 
sion as Judge Advocate.” He further states that he saw the papers 
various times in Butler’s office, and that when Butler was relieved 
from duty by General Grant, he carried the papers off with him. 

I shall now take one step further in this proof, and show you that 
this trade was allowed to continue, with an iutention on Butler’s part 
of pardoning the criminals if they gave their labors and effort in the 
same traffic to the best interests of the ring. 

Having shown you in my former speech, and already alluded to the 
fact, in what concern the convict Whitlock, was permitted to operate 
(that of Renshaw & Co.) after his conviction, and that in conformity 
with promises of pardon made him by Butler’s brother-in-law, his ser¬ 
vices were secured for a rebel traffic, and that Butler did pardon him. 
I now proceed to show you the same shameful pardon in the case of 
the convict Logan Hunt, that he might operate in the same shameful 
rebel traffic in the interest of the B. E. Butler, Geo. W. Lane, Eisher 
A. Hildreth, and John C. Sanborn ring. 

In answer to a question from Mr. Washburne, of whether he had 
been engaged in trade with the rebel states, he replies that when 
Lane was preparing to make his second trip with the “ Philadelphia ” 
to the rebel depots on the Nottaway River, (of which I have given a 
partial description in my speech at Salem,) Lane urged him very 
strongly to go with him, telling him if he would go he, Lane, would 
make it all right. “ I told him,” says Hunt, “ that I did not like to go, 
besides that I had been tried and that when the decision came to be 
announced, I might be imprisoned.” He said he would make that all 
right with me if I would go. 1 asked him how he was going to do 
that. I told him that I had confessed everything before the Commission , 
and that they might find me guilty and imprison me for a long time. 
He said he would fix that. I asked'him how he would do it. He 
said his influence at head-quarters was sufficient, that the findings 
of the commission had to be approved or disapproved by the general 
commanding before they were considered ns binding. I asked him 
who he was; he said General Butler. I told him if he was certain of 
that fact, that I would go on board his steamer for that trip. I heard 
the other day that the commission sentenced me to two years im¬ 
prisonment and to pay one thousand dollars fine, and that General 
Butler had revoked the imprisonment, but approved the fine.” 


8 


“ I understood you to say that after the trial you were put nder 
bonds?” asks Mr. Washburne. 

A. I was put under bonds when I came out of prison. I was p u 
in prison before the trial. 

Q. Have you been out under bonds ever since? 

A. I gave a bond the last time for $10,000 to appear there wh3n- 
ever the President, or Judge Advocate, or somebody wanted me. 

Q. When was that last $10,000 bond required? 

A. Immediately after the commission rose, when the trial was 
closed, before I was allowed to go from Old Point. 

Q. At what time was this last bond given? 

A. I do not know; I think in October, sometime. 

Q. Then I understand you that after this, and while you were out 
upon the bond, you went into this arrangement with Lane? 

A. Previous to this time, Lane told me if I would go with him, he 
would make it all right. 

“ How did you understand,” asks Mr. Washburne, (the chairman,) 
“thaL Lane would make it all right?” 

A. It was through the influence at headquarters of Mr. Hildreth, 
brother-in-law of General Butler. 

Q. Did he state that Hildreth was interested as a partner of his? 

A. He told me Hildreth was a partner of his. 

Q. To what extent ? 

A. He did not say to what extent. He told me, after pointing him 
out to me at one time, that Mr. Hildreth went to the front one day for 
the purpose of seeing General Butler about my case. 

Q. What did he tell you was the result of that interview ? 

A. He did not tell me, and I do not know as I asked him. 

Q. Did you not feel sufficient interest to ask ? 

A. He assured me all the time that it was all right. 

Q. What compensation did Lane agree to give you at the time you 
went with him upon the “ Philadelphia ” on the 19th December? 

A. He agreed to give me five cents a pound, and as a further con¬ 
sideration to make this matter all right with General Butler; that was 
the greatest inducement , I would not have gone at all except for that. 

Q. Why did you think he could do it ? 

A. Because I thought he had great influence with General Butler. 

Q. After you received this information from Lane in respect to 
your trial, did you expect to be relieved from your imprisonment and 
fine? 

A. I expected that the sentence, whatever it was, would be revoked 
by General Butler, as I understood it was, so far as the imprisonment 
was concerned. 

Q. Were you interested in some boots, shoes and hats, in this trip 
you took'with Lane? 

A. Lane told me if I would bring some shoes, he would make it all 
right with me. 

Q. Do you know all the parties interested in that trip up the 
Chowan River? 

A. Ho, sir, I do not. Lane told me he had to make ten dollars 
before he could have one dollar for himself; that Farrington (the cot¬ 
ton agent, who gave the permit) and Hildreth were partners. 

Q. Did Upton see White on board the “ Philadelphia”? 

A. Yes, I think he saw the whole transaction. I do not think 
White transacted any business on board. He knew me and came on 
board, and we took several drinks together. 

Q. Did you see Upton and White talking together? 

A. I do not know that I saw them talking separately; they were 
all together on board the boat. 

Q. How did you introduce White? 


9 


A. As my friend, Captain White. 

Q. In what service? 

A. I did not say in what service, but I supposed they understood 
that; he had on a rebel uniform. 

I shall now show you that after the convicts gave their aid in sup¬ 
plying the rebel army with subsistence from Butler’s department, But¬ 
ler did remit their punishment, but after he was dismissed from further 
duty in the field, and while on his way to Lowell, excusing himself for 
such pardon on the ground that the President, Abraham Lincoln, had 
legalized that description of trade. 

Mr. Washburne inquires of the Judge Advocate what was General 
Butler’s action upon the sentence of fine and imprisonment of the con¬ 
victs, (Logan Hunt and others) for furnishing supplies to the enemy 
in May, June and July of 1864. To which he replies, “he approved 
the proceedings, findings and sentence, and remitted the imprisonment 
because of the publication of the order of President legalizing that de¬ 
scription of traffic.” 

He further testifies that Butler carried the proceedings away with 
him, and that owing to an effort he made to procure them, he received 
the papers from the War Department, all except the case of Mr. Dud¬ 
ley Bean, which case he has never seen. 

He is further asked by Mr. Washburne, whether the action of Butler 
was of any validity upon them, to which he replies: “ In my opinion 
the action of General Butler, having been taken after his removal 
from command, was not valid.” 

Mr. Wasburne then asks “ if there was any date or place appended to 
General Butler’s remarks,” to which he replies: “ I think it was headed 
Head-quarters of the Department, but there was no date to it.” 

Mr. Washburne then inquires of Bean’s case, and asks if he knows 
why that was not returned; to which he replies that he does not, but 
that he had a conversation with Bean after General Butler had failed 
to return it; that Bean came to his office and asked if any action had 
been taken upon the proceedings in his case. “ I told him there had 
not.” He wanted to know what had become of it; he wanted to know 
if it had been sent down here. I told him no, that the last I had seen 
of his case, it was in General Butler’s possession, and that he had car¬ 
ried it away with him. 

Mr. Washburne then asks if he expressed himself satisfied, to which 
is replied: 

“Yes, sir; he appeared to be very much pleased.” 

And again, to the question, “ How did you know that the order of 
General Butler in these papers was not made before he was relieved? ” 
he answers: “Because I saw the papers after he was relieved, and 
there was no order on them.” 

Let us now examine this pretence that the executive order of the 
President authorized Butler to feed the rebels. 

Did the executive order of the President legalize that description of 
trade? General Butler knew this was false. It was a sham device to 
soil the spotless robes of Abraham Lincoln. The President’s order 
was dated September 24,1864, and did not allow goods contraband of 
war, gold bullion and foreign exchange to be carried into districts 
declared in rebellion, to be exchanged for products of the country. 

The men convicted by the Military Commission for trading with the 
enemy within Butler’s department were found guilty of exchanging 
contraband of war with the enemy for cotton, in May, June and July 
of the same year of 1864. It was a crime then, it is a crime now , and 
has been one from that day to this. 

But, gentlemen, I will not keep you many minutes longer. The 
hunt is almost up. Let me give you a few words more oi evidence 


10 


before the Hon. Committee of the House of Representatives, page 136, 
testimony of John T. Daniels. 

Question. (By Mr. Washburne, who is inquiring about the steamer. 
“ Philadelphia,” after she was seized by the navy, at the time Butler 
alleges she had no contraband of war aboard, in the Spring of 1864;) 

“ Whai became of the expedition?” 

Answer. The steamer is now at Roanoke Island, as I understand 
under seizure by the naval authorities. I felt very cautious about 
going into the business. General Butler being interested as I thought 
in the contract, I presumed would send me out of the department, and 
my interests being all here, I did not desire to go. 

Q. Why did you believe that General Butler was interested in the 
venture? 

A. I understood Mr. Haliday, Lane’s agent, so; and I learned after¬ 
wards that he was interested in all these privileged stores. Captain 
Johnson, late Adjutant-General here, was charged sometime ago with 
b eing connected with other parties in these stores, and with illicit trad¬ 
ing. He offered his resignation, and General Butler accepted it. Cap¬ 
tain Johnston told me that General Butler would not do otherwise than 
accept it, for that he, (Butler,) was interested in all these permits. A 
few nights ago, he, (Johnston,) came to see me at my house, and told 
me that he had been before this military commission, but that he had 
not told them all he knew, as he thought they amounted to nothing; 
that he thought they- would not take cognizance of the matter, as what 
was done was by General Butler’s order; but that if he could come 
before a congressional committee, he would show that General Butler 
was a partner in all their transactions, and that he was represented in 
them by John Sanborn. 

Q. What was Johnston’s position in the army? 

A. He was Adjutant-General to General Shepley. 

lie was cliargecLwith being connected with these parties, and just 
after the investigation at Fortress Monroe, the officers told me that he 
was forced to offer his resignation, or he would have been punished. 
His resignation was recommended by Butler. He afterwards told me 
that General Butler had given him authority as special agent to super¬ 
intend these trade stores around this district. 

Q. Did he say how much money he had made? 

A. He did not tell me. He said that John Sanborn represented 
General Butler’s interests, and that Hildreth was also interested with 
Lane. 

Johnston is put forward as one of Butler’s affidavit makers against 
me and my rule at Norfolk. 

Let me, gentlemen, before closing, having done with the printed 
testimony, turn your attention to other damning evidence against 
Benjamin F. Butler, member of Congress from the Fifth Massachusetts 
District ; and though not in managing a ring engaged in traffic with 
the enemy, it is in most suspicious circumstances of spoliation of one of 
his own victims at New Orleans. The claimant, Mr. P. H. Foley, of 
New Orleans, a very respectable merchant and of undoubted veracity, 
has made to these facts his affidavit which can be forthcoming if 
desired. At the surrender of New Orleans Mr. Foley was in the 
city, a merchant, took the oath under the proclamation of General 
Butler; also of citizenship. No complaint was ever made against him. 
As factor he had advanced a large amount of money to a planter living 
on the coast not far away; and received directlv from the planter a 
lien upon the sugar. Under the proclamation‘'his business and per¬ 
sonal security were guaranteed. He carried on the place and received 
permission to go up and down the river from the provost marshal. 


11 

ft 

There was held in the place some $80,000 worth of ugar, held for a 
market, and until sold, kept in safety there. 

Some eight months after the surrender, he was informed by the 
overseer of his place, that his sugar had been seized by Colonel Butler , 
under the military authority, and conveyed to New Orleans. lie 
found the steamboat at the landing commanded and guarded by mili¬ 
tary officers and soldiers under Colonel Butler. On demanding his 
sugar and exhibiting his papers, he was informed that the sugar had 
been seized by order of the commanding general, for the use of the 
United States, and was sequestered or confiscated, — and that without 
a hearing or any military complaint. The soldiers in the boat were 
under military orders, and the application was refused. A day or so 
afterward, he was visited by a broker and informed that the sugar had 
been seized by the United States for its use, and he could of his own 
motion get nothing; but, if he would sell and execute a bill of sale, lie 
would get so much. Thinking that better than nothing, it was done; 
he got the money and Colonel Butler the sugar, which went north to 
Boston. The United States did not get it. IIow did the Colonel get 
this out of the hands of the United States, or get the steamer, officers 
and soldiers to move it, without the authority of the commanding 
general (Butler)? 

So it is, gentlemen, that from all over the land, wherever Butler 
ruled, the evidence of his crimes and of his oppression comes thick and 
fast to confound him. 

And who was it but Butler that permitted it? He knew its exist¬ 
ence when he ordered the Commission to try Charles Whitlock, Ezra 
Baker, and Logan Hunt. He knew they had been found guilty, or 
might have known it, for his attention was called to it repeatedly, 
while they were engaging in the same traffic with his brother-in-law, 
Fisher A*. Hildreth, a partner, though without supplying capital. 

Did he know that Hildredth and Lane had promised the convicts 
the pardon of General Butler if they would devote themselves to the 
interest of the ring, in the same traffic of contraband of war, with the 
enemy? or when he did pardon them w r as it a coincidence? 

And now, gentlemen, excuse me if I turn for a few moments to the 
peculiar method which General Butler adopts to clear himself from 
the serious charges which I have made and proved against him. I am 
not on trial before my countrymen, and therefore I might well pass 
them by in silence. The shallow device of turning attention to me in 
seven or eight columns of his own perversions and untruths, and affi¬ 
davits of men whom I have shown had engaged in sustaining the 
enemy with subsistence during our late civil w r ar, wdien the very exist¬ 
ence of our national life was so seriously threatened, is too transparent. 
It is a confession of his guilt, and must be so accepted without the ad¬ 
ditional proof, which I have offered you to-night, from sources over 
which I had no control, and therefore could neither exaggerate nor 
suppress. 

I might, too, contrast my character, public and private, with the his¬ 
torical career of Benjamin F. Butler. That nothing venal can be 
Charged or sustained against me, though I fell him (?) to the rich mine 
in which Butler gleaned at Norfolk, may be, to his mind, evidence as 
satisfactory of my guilt, as his inference that, though he could find no 
evidence of venality in the Hon. Mr. Fessenden and others, who refused 
to impeach the President, this, of itself, was sufficient to convict them 
of being corrupted by Woolley’s gold, indeed, what logic is impossible 
to him who charges all the murders committed of late at New Orleans 
upon those who invited Mr. Fessenden to a public dinner in Boston, 
to thank him, with hearts filled with devout gratitude that he had saved 
General Grant from the additional responsibilities of entering upon an 


12 


administration that followed one in which B. F. Butler had been 
prime minister for never so short a period? 

In worldly treasures Butler is, I confess it, my superior. Before the 
war there was not so much in his favor. In a public speech made by 
one of his friends during the canvass it was declared that Butler was 
now worth three millions of dollars. This admission, in the face of 
suspicions which attach to him wherever in the civilized world the 
character of Butler is known, an admission made public to aid his 
cause, I accept as true. His pay during the war could not have ex¬ 
ceeded sixteen thousand dollars. 

Where the attempt is made to attack my military reputation such a 
gross ignorance of the rules and regulations is shown in the effort that 
one would suppose the distinguished reporter had originated the mat¬ 
ter himself. Wherein it is said that I was starving in the army it is 
simply silly. But I cannot enter in detail into all the untruths Butler 
has uttered, in private and in public, affecting myself. If I had known 
that he would have bought up every supplement of the Daily Evening 
Traveller until the next presidential election, and filled them with 
affidavits until he had exhausted his three millions, I should not have 
been deterred from exposing this bold, bad man. In every line Butler 
has written there is either a suppression of the truth, or a wilful mis¬ 
statement thereof. All this talk about dismissal from the service by a 
court of his brother officers, and all about the cashiering which Butler 
has repeated at many meetings in his district, he knew of course to be, 
and intended to utter a falsehood. I now defy him to produce such a 
record. If he does not I publicly declare that he stands convicted 
of the ungentlemanly habit of telling wilful falsehoods 

In the same category but without the inciting motive, stands Dr. 
Geo. B. Loring, of Salem, who rushed in hot haste after my first expo¬ 
sure of Butler, to repeat, in defence of his master, Butler’s malicious 
slander. I send him greeting — my defiance to produce such a record; 
and if he fail, declare him the utterer of a base slander and a baser false¬ 
hood. Having given Dr. Loring an opportunity to make a public re¬ 
traction, which he has thus far avoided, I shall brand him as publicly 
as he attempted to defame me. I leave my military reputation where 
General Grant puts it when he wrote the letter of the 4th of July, 
1866, already published, in which he gives one of the real reasons why 
Butler was sent to Lowell in disgrace. And at that time too, gentle¬ 
men, and more than one year before the 4th of July, 1866, General 
Grant had seen some of these foul affidavits. They were worked up 
by Butler when he lost the opportunity of distinguishing himself fur¬ 
ther at Dutch Gap, and with his Powder Boat at Fort Fisher, or in the 
exercise of that organizing talent in regulating trade with the enemy; 
they were worked up and sent to me from the Headquarters of the 
Army. I returned them, declaring the statements unfounded, and show¬ 
ing that they were made, some of them, by convicts whom Butler had 
allowed to escape, some of them by men whom I had caught in trade with 
the enemy, and then held for trial. That was the last I heard of it, and 
shortly after I secured Brevet of Major-General by General Grant’s 
recommendation. But thinking it possible General Butler might some 
time attempt for some other purpose to repeat the deceit, I directed 
my Provost Marshal to report to me how these convicts and traders were 
treated while in confinement, to which he responded in the following 
report, concerning the affidavits by Messrs. Whitlock, Baker, Kenshaw 
and Lane, of their treatment while held in arrest for trial upon 
charges preferred by the commission, of trading with the enemy. 


13 


Office Provost Marshal, District of Eastern Virginia, 

Norfolk, Va., June 12, 1865. 

The representations of these petitioners concerning place of confine¬ 
ment and treatment while confined are in the main false. 

Messrs. Whitlock and Baker were, I think, held in city jail two or three 
days. With this exception these persons were never in jail, our hard 
labor prison, or our guard house, while they were held in arrest. Booms 
in the building used for my headquarters, occupied by my clerks and order¬ 
lies, were vacated for these men while prisoners. The rooms were usually 
clean, and made more comfortable for the prisoners than they were for my 
assistants. 

I feel confident that there were no “ vermin ” in these rooms when these 
petitioners occupied them, and hope there were none when they left. 

These persons were allowed to have any provisions and all luxuries 
that they ordered, or that their friends sent them. In several instances 
they were permitted to go to their homes and there remain under guard. 

After the first few days they were allowed to see their friends in pres¬ 
ence of an officer, and they did see their counsel before they were admit¬ 
ted to bonds. 

I hold myself ready to make oath to the foregoing statement at any 
time. (Signed) O. L. Mann, 

JB’vt. Brig. Gen'l. and Prov. Mar., Dist. East Va. 

Official Copy. F. L. Harris, A. A. G. 

At that time, too, after the commission had adjourned, there was but a sin¬ 
gle affidavit (Charles Whitlock’s) of the use of profane language to witnesses. 
1 was then able to meet it by a counter affidavit from the clerk'to the com¬ 
mission, who was present during all its sittings. It is as follows: 

Head-Quarters District of Eastern Virginia, 

Norfolk, Va., June 19, 1865. 

I, S. S. Houghton, do hereby affirm that I was present during the ex¬ 
amination of Charles Whitlock before a military commission at Norfolk, 
Va., of which Brigadier-General Geo. H. Gordon was President, and also 
affirm that-to the best of my knowledge and belief, the said Whitlock was 
not at any time during the examination called by General Gordon a damned 
liar. S. S. Houghton, Clerk for Military Commission. 

Sworn to and subscribed, before me, this 19th day of June, A. D. 1865. 

M. C. Green, 

ls£ Lt. 2d ArVy, Judge Advocate Dist. Eastern Virginia. 

Wherein I am accused by other convicts and suppliers of subsistence 
to the enemy, of using strong language, I leave such charges where a 
virtuous community ought to leave them, if the inmates of a state 
prison should file affidavits against the judge who sent the,m there. 

Hut wherein the reporter Rockwell whom I trusted to report the 
testimony of the military commission investigating the subject of 
trade with States in rebellion, adds his evidence to the list of affidavit 
makers, he brands himself. Almost before the ink was dry upon his 
notes, he hastens for money to transcribe, it seems, the matter, for the 
head of the ring, Benjamin F. Butler. He, Rockwell, the man receiv¬ 
ing a large salary through my approval, asking and receiving besides 
many favors for his own personal comfort, sitting daily as a sworn 
reporter to record the testimony against a foul nest of contraband 
traders with the enemy; this man in the interest and pay of Butler is 
brought forward, with his presence to grace the list of scamps who 
have committed w'ilful perjury for their masters. And yet Rockwell 
was “ late representative to the legislature.” 

There remains now but one topic more for discussion; yes, two: 
First, that I saw, for the first time, a long list of silly charges and 
specifications in the Traveller. The whole file may have been on the 
table of the Hon. Charles Sumner, when he told me that they were 


14 


presented by General Bntler. bnt that he had not looked at them, and 
did not m an to. This was in 1S67. 

At that tlm^. these affidavits had increased in volume from the four 
paltry onrs wiii:h were presented through Butler while I was in com¬ 
mand a: Norfolk and he in LowelL And now they have grown again 
and wiU. doubtless, continue to swell in volume as the occasion calls 
or them. On Buder s principle of accusation, with false affidavits from 
his minions, and unblushing falsehoods from himself what might he 
not do against himself if he should ever part company with Satan and 
turn State s evidence? 

The other point is the assertion of Butler that General Grant, after 
Butler was dismissed from the field, ordered the fine of 82,000, imposed 
by General Palmer against Lane, to be remitted, his boat returned, 
and the proceeds of the sale of his property restored to him. I defy 
General Buder to produce any genuine evidence that this was done 
by General Grant, save by the procuration and representations of 
Butler himself to authorities in Washington from whom the order 
emanated. 

Wherein General Butler states that he refused Geo. W. Lane a per¬ 
mit to trade, and that General Shepley took out of Lane’s boat every¬ 
thing in the shape of provisions, he again perverts the truth. 

Here is his permit: 


Headquarters Armt op the James; 

Department of Virginia and North Carolina, 
Portress Monroe, May 4, 1864. 

Geo. W. Lane, Esq., has permission to pass through the Currituck 
Canal and Albemarle Sound, in Chowan County, N. C.7 with a cargo of 
ploughs, harrows, trace-chains, ropes, twine and such supplies as cannot 
be of use to an army, and to bring back a return cargo of cotton, tobacco, 
and other products of the country. 

This permit is given on the express condition of forfeiture of goods if 
found in any way affording aid or comfort to the enemy, except by trading 
with peaceable inhabitants in goods not contraband of war, or of use to 
the army. Benjamin F. Butler, Major-General Commanding 

And the following will show what this virtuous pretence was intended to 
cover: 

Edenton Bay, N. C., June 27, 1864. 

Sir : After Mr. Lane obtained your permission to proceed to Edenton 
Wharf to dispose of his goods to proper parties, in accordance with the 
trade regulations, on last Tuesday night, a lot of his goods were landed 
at the wharf at Edenton to a Confederate Government agent. I have good 
authority for saying, Friday night, some goods, or part of them, were 
on their way to the Confederate army, all of which was done without my 
permission. 

It is out of my power to carry out the trade regulations according to 
my instructions, and ask to be relieved from its duties on this occasion, 
and very respectfully ask if yon will have Mr. Lane to report to 3 r ou with 
Steamer “ Philadelphia,” that you in your good judgment can properly 
dispose of the case. 

The goods comprised tea, corn, coffee, sugar and whiskey. 

With high consideration, 

I am, truly your friend, 

E. H. Willett, 

Local Agent Treasury Department. 

Capt I. P. Bankhead, Commander. 

Thi3 note was written upon the occasion of the first attempt at traffic of 
the ‘‘ Philadelphia,” after she had received a permit from Abraham Lincoln 
to trade in ploughs, seeds, and trace-chains ; and after she had been permitted 


15 


by General Butler to pass through his department into a region occupied at 
"will by the enemy’s commissary agent. 

Does Butler mean to say that after Lane left Norfolk he took on board a 
cargo of contraband of war? Where did he get it? It must have come 
through Butler’s department! Did he not know it? Where is that great 
administrative power, which made him so famous at- New Orleans, so keen 
after the gold and jewels of his subjects ? 

But he did know it. The Cargo of the u Philadelphia” was purchased in 
Baltimore in the name of Charles Whitlock the convict, under the auspices 
and aid of John D. Sanborn who sent to Lane the following note under an 
assumed title. 

Office of the Adams Express Company, 

84 Washington Street, Boston, Saturday, April 9, 18G4. 

I come on from New York, and go back to-morrow. I expect to see 
you in Baltimore by Wednesday. I trust that you sent steamer so that 
we may have no delay in starting on arrival at Fortress Monroe and Nor¬ 
folk. 

Truly, etc., Chicago. 

[See page 153, Report of House of Representatives ] 

And in the interest of one B. H. Morse, the Butler-appointed treasury 
agent, who has added his affidavit.to the columns of the Traveller in Retl- 
patii’s budget; his note to Lane is as follows: 

Norfolk, February 3, 1864. 

Friend Lane : The authority came to hand last evening O. Iv., and the 
certified copy also. 

I have no news to communicate, but am expecting some every day. I 
will come when necessary, or you can come down if you think best. 
Did you get the bonds for wife ? She can send the money at any moment. 

B. H. Morse. 

And the packages of molasses, coffee, etc., etc, which were bought in Bal¬ 
timore to go through Butler’s department to the rebel agent, are to be 
found page 50 report of committee of House of Representatives investi¬ 
gating subject of trade with rebellious States. 

I must call your attention to another subject that more fully illustrates the 
animus of these affidavits and their falseness 

Of the charge of withholding charity from the orphans of St. Mary’s Or¬ 
phan Asylum,— when an application was made to me for this charity I sent 
the communication to my commissioner for the poor, a very worthy and 
humane gentleman, to report upon their needs. Here is his reply: 

Office Commission for the Poor, 
Norfolk, Va., April 1, 1865. 

Brigadier-General Geo. H. Gordon , Commanding Department Eastern Vir¬ 
ginia : 

General : I have the honor to return herewith three communications 
marked A, B, C, relative to certain supplies to be furnished as charity to 
St. James’ Orphan Asylum of this city, and to report that, by the assist¬ 
ance furnished by Government, and aid given by individuals, the Asylum 
has received at least $7,4)00 within the last year, in currency. There ap¬ 
pear to have been forty children cared for, taking the above sum as the 
gross receipts for their support (an average expense per year of one hun¬ 
dred and seventy-live dollars.) 

The average expens# to the Government for all the persons (adults and 
children) in the counties of Norfolk, Elizabeth City, and Princess Anne, 
cared for and supported by tlie Commission for the Poor, is not over forty 
dollars per annum. 


16 


The impression I have received is, that St. Mary’s Asylum is, for the 
present at least, abundantly supplied with means for its maintenance and 
comfort. 

I have the honor to be very respectfully 

Your most obedient servant, 

Geo. T. Carney, 

Major and Quartermaster. 

For Commission for the Poor. 

The evidence against General Butler from sources that he cannot defile are 
conclusive of his guilt. 4 

Supplies from his department were going out to feed the enemy in May, 
June and July of 1864. The men who committed the offence were arrested, 
tried, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. But supplies to the enemy 
from his department still continued with increased vigor. The very men who 
had been tried shared in the transactions and in the profits of the traffic. The 
fact that they were doing so, and that he had not acted upon their cases to 
confirm their punishment, was more than once brought to General Butler’s 
notice but without avail; a corrupt bargain (in favor of his brother-in-law and 
the ring) that he should shield them upon the valuable consideration of a con¬ 
tinuation of their services in the same nefarious traffic in which (in the words 
of General Canby in his testimony to the committee) “ they bartered the 
cause for which the army was fighting, with all the baseness of Judas Iscariot, 
but without his remorse,” was carried out by General Butler, in that he did 
shield them by remitting the sentence of their imprisonment. 

And thus the traffic continued through August, September, October, No 
vember and December, until stopped by General Grant’s interposition. 

Were the enemy fed from the department of Virginia and North Carolina 
while under command of General B. F. Butler V General Grant says they 
were! Our investigating committee of the House of Representatives reports 
that they were! A military commission ordered by General Grant to inves¬ 
tigate the matter adds its aye to the high authority already quoted. 

Did Butler know it, and allow it, and share it, and grow rich out of it? 
Then by the 56th article of war he should be shot! 

Art. 56. ‘‘ Whosoever shall relieve the enemy with money, victuals or am¬ 
munition, or shall knowingly harbor or protect an enemy, shall suffer death 
or such other punishment as shall be ordered by the sentence of a Court- 
martial.” 

Did he not know it ? Then he proves his incompetency as the commander 
of a department; and for the wrong, and injury, and suffering he thereby 
caused, he ought to be hung. He may hang on either horn of the dilemma 
that pleases him. 

General Grant with great humanity sent Butler to Lowell. His exploits : 
Dutch Gap; the powder-boat; and Fort Fisher; and his administration of 
his department could not save him. He had capered about fantastically on 
foot and on horseback, and made a great deal of noise ; but at last, tired 
of him and his pretentious assertions, General Grant dismissed him in disgrace 
from further operations with the army. 

You are to judge, Gentlemen, whether such a man should represent your 
district beyond the time which expires on the 4th of March next. 

My duty is done. The honor, the welfare, the life of the State is in the 
hands of the people. There is but one rule of action. Let each citizen so 
live and act and vote as if upon him alone rested a responsibility for the 
nation’s life. 

I / 



